The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that reviews institutional implementation of the principles set out in the FSB Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes in 16 jurisdictions. The analysis concludes that conflicts of interest between the resolution and supervisory functions can arise irrespective of whether they are institutionally co-located or separate. A key factor in all types of arrangements is balancing operational independence for the resolution function with structures that allow it to benefit from synergies with the supervisory function.
The review shows the variation that exists in the institutional arrangements for bank resolution. While the adoption of the Key Attributes has given authorities an opportunity to review and possibly adjust their bank resolution arrangements, the principles-based nature of these standards regarding the resolution authority leaves scope for jurisdictions to integrate the resolution function within their existing institutional architecture. One of the principal considerations that emerged from discussions with authorities is how to achieve appropriate operational independence for the resolution function while enabling it to benefit from the synergies with the supervisory function. While the potential for conflicts of interest between supervision and resolution is widely recognized, there is a growing perception of the benefits of institutional arrangements that support close cooperation between the two functions. This negotiation between the two principles—operational independence and conflict management, on the one hand, and exploiting synergies on the other—is still ongoing in some authorities as new arrangements evolve and mature.
The review shows that conflicts of interest between resolution and supervisory functions could arise independently of the location of the resolution function. The co-location of the supervisory and resolution functions facilitates coordination and the resolution of conflicts through internal governance arrangements. To date, the bank resolution function in its current form is relatively new, and untested, in many jurisdictions. Therefore, effective practices in this area may still be a work in progress. Resolution authorities have not encountered significant obstacles in resolution planning and, where the arrangements were in place in earlier crises, in the conduct of bank resolution. Complex arrangements, such as hybrid models primarily resulting from historical experience, require greater coordination efforts. Resolution authorities also consider their staffing levels and legal protection as broadly adequate to exercise their functions, with the possibility of scaling-up resources in times of increased pressure.
Keywords: International, Banking, Resolution Planning, Resolution Framework, Key Attributes, Resolution Regime, Reporting, FSI, BIS
Previous ArticleEIOPA Launches Stress Test for Insurance Sector in EU
ECB published Guideline 2021/975, which amends Guideline ECB/2014/31, on the additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral.
EIOPA published a report, from the Consultative Expert Group on Digital Ethics, that sets out artificial intelligence governance principles for an ethical and trustworthy artificial intelligence in the insurance sector in EU.
HKMA published the seventh and final issue of the Regtech Watch series, which outlines the three-year roadmap of HKMA to integrate supervisory technology, or suptech, into its processes.
EC launched a targeted consultation to improve transparency and efficiency in the secondary markets for nonperforming loans (NPLs).
BIS, Danmarks Nationalbank, Central Bank of Iceland, Norges Bank, and Sveriges Riksbank launched an Innovation Hub in Stockholm, making this the fifth BIS Innovation Hub Center to be opened in the past two years.
FDITECH, the technology lab of FDIC, announced a tech sprint that is designed to explore new technologies and techniques that would help expand the capabilities of community banks to meet the needs of unbanked individuals and households.
EC released the EU Taxonomy Compass, which visually represents the contents of the EU Taxonomy starting with the EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act.
FDIC is seeking comments on a rule to amend the interagency guidelines for real estate lending policies—also known as the Real Estate Lending Standards.
EIOPA published its annual report, which sets out the work done in 2020 and indicates the planned work areas for the coming months.
The ESRB paper that presents an analytical framework that assesses and quantifies the potential impact of a bank failure on the real economy through the lending function.